quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Did you not make that post above that blacks in the Nile Valley are the result of sub saharan slave trading? Why are you running? You created the thread and somebody asks you for proof now you are running? What happened. Where's all that data you got?
Is this what you got?
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: A very interesting article from the Archéo-Nil journal :
"Origines du peuplement de l’Égypte ancienne : l’apport de l’anthropobiologie" by Alain Froment :
[QUOTE]"[...]"[...] a multivariate craniometric analysis of 384 world populations is presented. It shows that the Egyptian population presented a great variability, and confirms the general opinion on the polymorphism and the geographical gradient concerning the shape of the skull: the populations of Lower Egypt are very close to those of the Maghreb, and those of Upper Egypt resemble those of Nubia, the latter being close, but not identical, to those of Sub-Saharan Africa.
Mixed unions in the XVIIIth dynasty (which again confirms what I thought) :
quote: The first king of the XVIIIth dynasty, Ahmosis, had married his sister, Ahmes-Nofertari, described as Ethiopian , who was then regent, then goddess; their son Amenophis I conquered Ethiopia. We have the mummy of Nofertari: curly hair, small mouth, thin lips, straight and slightly lowered nose slightly lowered, short without being flat with wide wings, of dimensions 47 x33 mm (CHANTRE 1904, p.71). [...] The queen of the reformer Tiyi, wife of Akhenaten, of Amenophis is of commoner and Nubian origin (see her famous effigy in the Egyptian Museum of Berlin, miscegenation N°211834), which proves that miscegenation was widespread.
Sounds like to me there were always blacks in the Nile Valley in those two quotes. So where is the proof that black skin is foreign to Upper Egypt and the Nile Valley?
Still waiting.
No the topic wasn't about slavery in Egypt and running from what ? Lmao the quotes you post highlight that they were similar to modern egyptians which you describe as "arab" what's even more funny is that the ancient samples we have are genetically close to arabs than any other population XD the second quote show that nubians could reach high position in egypt's society so posting "queen nodjmet" as a proof of black egyptian is misleading since she could have had nubian ancestry.
As for slavery since you ask for it :
quote:For Zayed (Unesco 1980 p. 141) there were in the Middle Kingdom villages of Nubian settlers as far as the Fayum. The composition of present-day Egypt has been modulated by a double flow in the opposite direction: the Mediterranean and Arab contribution, difficult to quantify but not necessarily important since the Islamization of Egypt was the fact of the 4000 horsemen led by Amr ibn el as, followed by a slow diffusion, and the negro-African contribution of the slave trade to Muslim countries, which lasted from the Middle Ages to the present; Caillaud counted 40,000 slaves in 1826; around 1870 it was estimated that 20 to 25,000 of them, raided in the Upper Nile and as far as Chad, passed through Egypt each year (Hamon 1893, Revue de l'Orient 2: 228), a good number of them making a home on the spot [. ..]
You made this thread to suggest that "Afrocentrics" were making up facts about the ancient nile valley using "hair" as proof. Prof of what? That black Africans cant have straight hair? Based on what?
So seriously what is your point? You certainly cannot argue that blacks in Sudan and Upper Egypt are slaves as they have been there since the beginning.
But beyond that this is the kind of hair worn in the ancient Nile Valley:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: I am talking to you like this right now. What do you have to prove that Sudanese and Upper Egyptians, including people from Aswan are Sub Saharan slaves? What part of Sub Saharan Africa did they come from and when? And how does that relate to Queen Nodjmet who was obviously black African? You keep talking all this big talk then bring it. Where is your proof? You sound like you really don't have anything to support all this rah rah talk but hot air is what I am saying. So if you got it bring it.
Still waiting for all this data you claim to have.
You're off topic and who talked about SSA slaves in Egypt ?? Do you know the ancestry of "queen nodjmet" ? Do you know exactly what she looked like ? Why doesn't she look like other mummies we have ? So stfu and focus on the datas I've posted I don't care about your impressions. [/QB]
The ultimate question to ask is this: You are North African. Do you believe your AFRICAN Ancestors, including your North African ancestors.....not the Eurasian ancestors in the multiple lines of ancestry in the North but *specifically the AFRICAN Ancestors aboriginal to the Equatorial and Northern parts of the region* - Do you believe they had Dark skin and kinky hair?
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Doug M. always quick with some of the best images of Africans on the net.
This is why its silly to use sloppy outdated Hamite BS argumentation, trying to pretend one set of Africans are more authentic than another set of Africans.
and if as Beyoku's evidence strongly suggests that "straight" non kinky hair is ancestral to Magical Barrier "SSAs", then what's the point of even having this discussion?
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: [QB]
You made this thread to suggest that "Afrocentrics" were making up facts about the ancient nile valley using "hair" as proof. Prof of what? That black Africans cant have straight hair? Based on what?
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: [QB] ??? How does that show I have a complex ? And how is that "racist" ?
Are you seriously asking this question? BTW, show us where you got your picture spams from....what webites? Then we can judge if its racist or not.
quote:I showed you this so that you realize how different egyptians were to these nubians who look similar to your folks.
You're just cherry picking and you know it, Its sloppy Nassa, Im being 100% serious with you. Elmestro explained before locking your thread that we can post 100s if not thousands of images to show Egyptians that "look similar to my folks"(WTF does that even mean smh)
quote:Now you're basically calling AEs racist and into stereotypes because they used to depict blacks as your "true negro" ...XD
Stop trying to put your modern racial interpretation on AE art, the very thing you bash Afrocentrist for doing.
quote:??? as far as I know the nubians from his thread had straight/wavy hair too and nubians were multi-ethnic like today confirming how different these people were from you and further confirming the eurasian ancestry of AEs and lower nubians.
What does "Eurasian" even mean let alone have have to do with the creation and pioneering of Ancient Egypt?
Do you have evidence of Eurasians as founders of Ancient Egyptian dynsatic culture similar and surpassing to what is found in Africa, if so where in Eurasia? Post it.
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: I am talking to you like this right now. What do you have to prove that Sudanese and Upper Egyptians, including people from Aswan are Sub Saharan slaves? What part of Sub Saharan Africa did they come from and when? And how does that relate to Queen Nodjmet who was obviously black African? You keep talking all this big talk then bring it. Where is your proof? You sound like you really don't have anything to support all this rah rah talk but hot air is what I am saying. So if you got it bring it.
Still waiting for all this data you claim to have.
You're off topic and who talked about SSA slaves in Egypt ?? Do you know the ancestry of "queen nodjmet" ? Do you know exactly what she looked like ? Why doesn't she look like other mummies we have ? So stfu and focus on the datas I've posted I don't care about your impressions.
The ultimate question to ask is this: You are North African. Do you believe your AFRICAN Ancestors, including your North African ancestors.....not the Eurasian ancestors in the multiple lines of ancestry in the North but *specifically the AFRICAN Ancestors aboriginal to the Equatorial and Northern parts of the region* - Do you believe they had Dark skin and kinky hair? [/QB]
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: I am talking to you like this right now. What do you have to prove that Sudanese and Upper Egyptians, including people from Aswan are Sub Saharan slaves? What part of Sub Saharan Africa did they come from and when? And how does that relate to Queen Nodjmet who was obviously black African? You keep talking all this big talk then bring it. Where is your proof? You sound like you really don't have anything to support all this rah rah talk but hot air is what I am saying. So if you got it bring it.
Still waiting for all this data you claim to have.
You're off topic and who talked about SSA slaves in Egypt ?? Do you know the ancestry of "queen nodjmet" ? Do you know exactly what she looked like ? Why doesn't she look like other mummies we have ? So stfu and focus on the datas I've posted I don't care about your impressions.
The ultimate question to ask is this: You are North African. Do you believe your AFRICAN Ancestors, including your North African ancestors.....not the Eurasian ancestors in the multiple lines of ancestry in the North but *specifically the AFRICAN Ancestors aboriginal to the Equatorial and Northern parts of the region* - Do you believe they had Dark skin and kinky hair? [/QB]
Yes I believe they looked somewhat black and you taught me that there was a possibility that they might have straight/wavy hair so idk but anyway at the end it doesn't matter what they looked like I embrace all my ancestors
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: Yes between afrocentrists now you'll face the facts.
No. These findings were made available to everyone in this forum not just "Afrocentrics". So I know the facts which you desperately attempt to twist. Also Egypt like the rest of North Africa is still AFRICAN so that label is nonsensical.
quote:There has never been an all "black" egypt or one race of Egyptians. It showed variation like today.
Again with your twisting of facts, we know when you use the label "black" you refer to a specific phenotype which nobody in here ever claimed. Yes Egypt showed variation but not exactly like today since today's Egyptians are the result of large scale admixture with Eurasians. The ancients were not. Even Keita said that the ancient variation was indigenous.
quote:Therefore why do you consider some of their traits as local or Egyptian? Why spamming pictures of people with foreign ancestry ?
What the hell are you talking about?! When I said "mixed" unions I was referring to mixing between Upper Egyptians (who possess traits they share with Nubians) and Lower Egyptians who represent Coastal North African types! LOL The so-called Nubian features which you claim are "foreign" are actually NOT at all but local to southern Egypt moron, as your own source shows!! LMAO
quote:The bust might be misleading yes but how does that contradict a possible Nubian origin for Tiye? Lower Nubians actually were more Eurasian shifted before being gradually altered by geneflow from further south with a massive change during the Meroitic period:
First you say Tiye is not Nubian and her bust is rotted old wood even though it's painted, now you say she is Nubian. Again this double mindedness of yours only shows your confusion if not dishonesty. There is nothing in the records or archaeology to show that Tiye or her family were Nubian. They all indicate she comes from Akhmim. Also what do you mean by "Eurasian shifted"??
quote: "After a long period of depopulation which affected it during a millennium, Lower Nubia is occupied at the beginning of our era by populations of a very different physiognomy from those of the pharaonic group, with negroid characters already affirmed as we have underlined. There is no doubt that the introduction of the black element in Lower Nubia comes especially from this period and is amplified in the passage from the Meroitic culture to that of group X. We can follow its progression by the increasing differences in CH2 and by the increase in variability that mainly affects the "negroid characters" (Billy, 1975). Finally, it should be noted that the upward current of black infiltration does not reach Upper Egypt, since the samples from this same period at Denderah (D', D") or Manfalut (MA) do not show any differences with respect to the Egyptian-Nubian population background established since the beginning of the dynastic era. "
Oh, of course! How predictable. LOL The Mesolithic Nubians were more "negroid" in morphology in contrast to the Neolithic Nubians who were more "caucasoid", but since when does "caucasoid" morphology mean Eurasian?? Again this shows your stubborn ignorance if not stupidity when it comes morphological typology. Are you aware that Mesolithic remains in Kenya also exhibit "caucasoid" morphology, does that mean they are "Eurasian" too?!
Also if Nubia had massive Sub-Saharan influence during the Meroitic Period then how come the odontic features don't show it?
It seems both the Meroitic and X-Group peoples are classified squarely as North African and not even intermediate to Sub-Saharans.
quote:More new is the fact, already suspected in Soleb by G. Billy and M.C.Chamla (1981), that in Nubia, the nasal index, identical to the European values at the origin, increases considerably then to join the figures observed in central Africa; at the same time, the dental anthropologists (Greene 1972, 1981; Carlson and Van Gerven 1979; Small 1981; Calcagno 1986) observe a morphological reduction of the dentition. This phenomenon of nasal enlargement could not, in Nubia, be linked to the humidification of the climate since it was, on the contrary, aridified, and thus comes from genetic exchanges, in the sense of a greater contribution from Black Africa; it is up to archaeology to link this evolution with cultural mutations.
Okay? What about the Badarians who also had large nasal indices? Do they have negroid admixture as well, even though their hair texture was loose and wavy? What about Australian Aborigines who have among the highest nasal indices in the world yet they live in one of the most arid places on Earth? Do they have "negroid" admixture as well?? LOL
quote:Who told you this wasn't done for Ramses II?
Because I have heard of NO melanin studies done on him. Have you? If so, please present it.
quote:There has been no skin color allele testing for any egyptian mummy and I'm not expecting your regular tanned fellah to have lower level of melanin as many SSA groups. And "dark mediterranean" here does not refer to your pseudo-scientific taxonomic labels from the 1940s lol
Of course, because if there was a skin allele test on Egyptian mummies I would have heard about it very likely in this forum. However a melanin dosage test was performed on Middle Kingdom mummies by a German team in 2005:
Determination of optimal rehydration, fixation and staining methods for histological and immunohistochemical analysis of mummified soft tissues
1Department of Biology I, Biodiversity Research/Anthropology, Ludwig-Maximilians University, Munich, Germany Skin sections showed particularly good tissue preservation, although cellular outlines were never distinct. Although much of the epidermis had already separated from the dermis, the remaining epidermis often was preserved well (Fig. 1). The basal epithelial cells were packed with melanin as expected for specimens of Negroid origin. In the dermis, the hair follicles, hair, and sebaceous and sweat glands were readily apparent (Fig. 2). Blood vessels, but no red blood cells, and small peripheral nerves were identified unambiguously (Fig. 3). The subcutaneous layer showed loose connective tissue fibers attached to the dermis, and fat cell remnants were observed.
LMAO at you bringing up "pseudo-scientific taxonomic labels from the 1940s" even though you cling to racial terms from 18th century like "Caucasoid" and "Negroid" as if they are scientific valid!
quote:Haha see you're forced to recognize that they didn't share much similarities with most sub-saharan africans. Their type of hair is prevalent among eurasians not sub-saharans. Also most "north sudanese, ethiopians and somalis" do not have loose wavy hair but kinky/frizzy.
Your ignorance betrays you as usual. The Egyptians actually shared a lot of similarities with Sub-Saharans-- dark skin coloring, skeletal builds, and yes even some cranio-morphological features including the so-called "caucasoid" features that are found in some Sub-Saharans and yes even loose hair-- the last trait is actually common among populations in the Sahara and in arid ares of East Africa. And yes that does mean MOST North Sudanese, (SOME Ethiopians) and Most Somalis and even West Saharan groups like the Tuareg and Moors.
"The place which was called El Gazie, ( 2 ) was a low sandy beach, having no trees in sight, nor any verdure. There was no appear-ance of mountain or hill ; nor (excepting only the rock on which the ship was wrecked) any thing but sand as far as the eve could reach. The Moors [of Mauritania] were straight haired, but quite black; their dress consisted of little more than a rug or a skin round their waist, their upper parts and from their knees downwards, being wholly naked."--American Explorer Robert Adams (1810)
Even anthropologists who studied Saharan populations like Lloyd Cabot Briggs and Oric Bates agree that even without Arab/Eurasian admixture the dominant hair type was loose and wavy and the same was said about Eastern Sahara and tribes of the Danakil and Somali deserts. The last two people groups have nil Eurasian admixture and yet they still have such hair.
quote:And yes straight/wavy hair appeared first among eurasians not sub-saharans:
quote:Interestingly, different genes have been associated with straight hair in Europeans and East Asians, suggesting that this trait evolved independently at least twice. The most robust associations for straight hair have implicated Trichohyalin (TCHH, a structural hair protein) in Europeans14,15, and EDAR (a cell signalling receptor) in East Asians16, illustrating the range of cellular mechanisms that can impact on hair shape.
Pray tell where in that study does it say anything about loose hair in texture in Africans or that such was the result of the mutations found in Eurasian hair?? What you cited only mentioned that found in Europeans and East Asians.
quote:
quote:Recent studies have identified Asian-specific alleles of the EDAR and FGFR2 genes that are associated with thick, straight hair, suggesting that these variants arose after the divergence of Asians and Europeans .3, [...] The T allele at rs11803731 is the derived state and shows a striking geographic specificity to Europe and western-central Asia, reaching its highest frequency in Northern Europeans (Figure 1E), suggesting that the variant arose somewhere in this broad region.
Common Variants in the Trichohyalin Gene Are Associated with Straight Hair in Europeans, 2009
What about the loose hair texture of South Asians and Australian Aborigines?? The latter not only has loose straight hair but also light colored hair like auburn, red, and even blonde hair! Yet they're genomic tests show them to be the oldest Eurasian branch to diverge from the first Out-of-Africans. If that's the case, then is it not possible that loose hair evolved in Africa first??
Meanwhile I'll cite an actual trichometric study done on Egyptian hair:
'Egyptology: Hanging in the Hair'
by Anu M'bantu and Fari Supia
West Africa Magazine 8th July 2001 In 1914, a white doctor in Detroit initiated divorce proceeding against his wife whom he suspected of being a "closet Negro". At the trial, the Columbia University anthropologist, Professor Franz Boas (1858-1942), was called upon as a race expert. Boas declared: "If this woman has any of the characteristics of the Negro race it would be easy to find them. ..One characteristic that is regarded as reliable is the hair. You can tell by microscopic examination of a cross-section of hair to what race that person belongs." With this revelation, trichology (the scientific analysis of hair) reached the American public. But what are these differences?
The cross-section of a hair shaft is measured with an instrument called a trichometer. From this you can get measurements for the minimum and maximum diameter of a hair The minimum measurement is then divided by the maximum and then multiplied by a hundred. This produces an index. A survey of the scientific literature produces the following breakdown:
San, Southern African 55.O0 Zulu, Southern African 55.O0 Sub-Saharan Africa 60.O0 Tasmanian (Black) 64.70 Australian (Black) 68.00 Western European 71.20 Asian Indian 73.00 Navajo American 77.00 Chinese 82.60
In the early 1970s, the Czech anthropologist Eugen Strouhal examined pre-dynastic Egyptian skulls at Cambridge University. He sent some samples of the hair to the Institute of Anthropology at Charles University, Prague, to be analyzed. The hair samples were described as varying in texture from "wavy" to "curly" and in colour from "light brown" to "black". Strouhal summarized the results of the analysis: "The outline of the cross-sections of the hairs was flattened, with indices ranging from 35 to 65. These peculiarities also show the Negroid inference among the Badarians (predynastic Egyptians)." The term "Negroid influence" suggests intermixture, but as the table suggests this hair is more "Negroid" than the San and the Zulu samples, currently the most Negroid hair in existence!
In another study, hair samples from ten 18th- 25th dynasty individuals produced an average index of 51! As far back as 1877, Dr. Pruner-Bey analyzed six ancient Egyptian hair samples. Their average index of 64.4 was similar to the Tasmanians who lie at the periphery of the African-haired populations. A team of Italian anthropologists published their research in the Journal of Human Evolution in 1972 and 1980. They measured two samples consisting of 26 individuals from pre-dynastic, 12th dynasty and 18th dynasty mummies. They produced a mean index of 66.50 The overall average of all four sets of ancient Egyptian hair samples was 60.02. Sounds familiar ..., just check the table!..
quote:Your point? The Samples from upper and lower egypt are all closer to "bedouins" than to any sub-saharan population LOL and you used to called modern Egyptians "arabs" hahahahah and they are also closer to the maghreb than to SSA XD
You mean the same modern Bedouins that the Abusir mummy genomic study show to possess Sub-Saharan ancestry that the Abusir mummies lack?
Also, I never said all modern Egyptians were Arabs you liar! 'Egyptian' is a nationality that includes different ethnic groups with the dominant one being Arabs, but you have other ethnic groups like Greeks of Alexandria to Nubians of Aswan. It is the Baladi people however who are the indigenous (true) ethnic Egyptians.
quote:They actually cluster closer to the European one than the Sub-Saharan one which includes ethnicities from West, central, south and east Africa and as you can see only the most Eurasian shifted Nubians plot close to the ancient Egyptian samples and the centroids of both lower and upper Egyptians are closer to Europe than the Nubian one.
And again, moron you are talking about metric data which is not accurate in assessing ancestry only facial features. Having narrow that is "caucasoid" facial form does NOT make one "Eurasian" shifted. I already told you before that nonmetric traits are more accurate at assessing genetic relations and the nonmetrics show Egyptians to be closer related to ancient Sudanese groups than to anyone else. Even Hanihara's particular assessment of traits showed them to be intermediate between Sub-Saharans and non-Africans and NOT part of the non-African group. This is because genetic studies suggest Non-Africans descend from Africans who left from the northern part of the continent. North Africa is still part of Africa nitwit
quote:A fucking european has literally more rights to claim egyptians than afro-americans XD
ROTFLMAO
Keep telling yourself that if it maintains your delusion.
I guess I don't have to bring up the fact that Europeans have black African admixture which is why autosomally they are closer to West Africans than the latter is to South Africans.
quote:It seems like you don't pay attention: The E serie from the 26th dynasty is actually separated in the picture from an older E series (4th-6th dynasties). Also can you explain to us what such kind of skulls are doing next to the pyramids?
No, I tend to not pay much attention to the postings of a deluded raving nutcase such as yourself. Okay if you are referring to the older E series they seem to represent an outlying type of the Egyptian series in one direction.
The Badarians form another in the other direction. That's just part of the diversity in the region. Your point?
quote:The paper highlight continuity with all modern egyptians not only with your cherrypicked "baladi" who are not black btw.
Of course there's continuity as the indigenous Egyptians never left, but you can't deny the historical change in demographics due to foreign incursions. And yes we know what "black" means in your mind which the rest of the world disagrees.
quote:Modern egyptians are the closest thing to ancient egyptians: [same picture spam sh*t]
But which modern Egyptians? I told you modern Egypt is ethnically diverse. You mean to tell me fair-skinned actors of Arab or Circassian ancestry represent the ancient Egyptians better than rural Baladi? LOL
quote:and certainly not these clowns XDDDD : [strawman sh*t spam]
Nobody said black Americans were Egyptians loon, however they sure are closer to it than white muktabas like yourself and your Euro cohorts! LOL
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
With regards to the hair texture discussion, I am still inclined to think that fluffy "Afro" hair, while probably not ancestral for hominins, may be ancestral for Homo sapiens at latest and that straighter hair in certain modern human populations represents a series of reversions. Consider that a lot of the African populations with fluffy hair are otherwise very distinct genetically from one another, often more than some of them are distinct from non-Africans. If kinky hair was something that developed in sub-Saharan Africa after OOA, you'd think there would be far more genetic uniformity among extant Africans than we observe due to them all descending from the same selective sweep. Instead, we have a bunch of genetically disparate African populations, and even some non-Africans, sharing the trait of fluffy hair. If we apply phylogenetic bracketing here, fluffy hair seems more likely to be ancestral for AMH.
That doesn't necessarily mean the looser or wavier textures you see in some ancient Egyptian and Sudanese mummies is entirely due to admixture with West Eurasian back-migrants. I suspect what happened in North Africa could be analogous to what apparently happened within Australasian populations. Papuans, Melanesians, and the extinct indigenous Tasmanians all have or had fluffy hair, yet indigenous populations on the Australian mainland have predominantly loosely curled, wavy, or even straight hair. Maybe prehistoric North Africans underwent selection for less fluffy hair as a result of living in a desert climate analogous to that of the Australian interior? I wouldn't even rule out the possibility that this development even contributed to the predominant hair texture in western Eurasia today if we consider Basal Eurasian admixture in current West Eurasians.
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: With regards to the hair texture discussion, I am still inclined to think that fluffy "Afro" hair, while probably not ancestral for hominins, may be ancestral for Homo sapiens at latest and that straighter hair in certain modern human populations represents a series of reversions. Consider that a lot of the African populations with fluffy hair are otherwise very distinct genetically from one another, often more than some of them are distinct from non-Africans. If kinky hair was something that developed in sub-Saharan Africa after OOA, you'd think there would be far more genetic uniformity among extant Africans than we observe due to them all descending from the same selective sweep. Instead, we have a bunch of genetically disparate African populations, and even some non-Africans, sharing the trait of fluffy hair. If we apply phylogenetic bracketing here, fluffy hair seems more likely to be ancestral for AMH.
That doesn't necessarily mean the looser or wavier textures you see in some ancient Egyptian and Sudanese mummies is entirely due to admixture with West Eurasian back-migrants. I suspect what happened in North Africa could be analogous to what apparently happened within Australasian populations. Papuans, Melanesians, and the extinct indigenous Tasmanians all have or had fluffy hair, yet indigenous populations on the Australian mainland have predominantly loosely curled, wavy, or even straight hair. Maybe prehistoric North Africans underwent selection for less fluffy hair as a result of living in a desert climate analogous to that of the Australian interior? I wouldn't even rule out the possibility that this development even contributed to the predominant hair texture in western Eurasia today if we consider Basal Eurasian admixture in current West Eurasians.
I think that across all African populations over time various genetic traits existed as part of random mutation or other factors and then were amplified based on natural selection. And over time different population bottlenecks limited the amount of these variant traits in the resulting population in various waves of OOA. And one of those waves likely had a higher occurrence of straighter hair. Keep in mind that there still are a lot of questions about the exact nature of the split between HSS and other archaic hominids in Africa. So there is a lot we don't know. I doubt that OOA was a single event. I also believe that a segment of these populations existed in North Africa which would best be described as proto Eurasian, but was likely absorbed or replaced in various areas due to waves of mixture with other Africans and later Eurasians.
Posts: 8890 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: With regards to the hair texture discussion, I am still inclined to think that fluffy "Afro" hair, while probably not ancestral for hominins, may be ancestral for Homo sapiens at latest and that straighter hair in certain modern human populations represents a series of reversions. Consider that a lot of the African populations with fluffy hair are otherwise very distinct genetically from one another, often more than some of them are distinct from non-Africans. If kinky hair was something that developed in sub-Saharan Africa after OOA, you'd think there would be far more genetic uniformity among extant Africans than we observe due to them all descending from the same selective sweep. Instead, we have a bunch of genetically disparate African populations, and even some non-Africans, sharing the trait of fluffy hair. If we apply phylogenetic bracketing here, fluffy hair seems more likely to be ancestral for AMH.
That doesn't necessarily mean the looser or wavier textures you see in some ancient Egyptian and Sudanese mummies is entirely due to admixture with West Eurasian back-migrants. I suspect what happened in North Africa could be analogous to what apparently happened within Australasian populations. Papuans, Melanesians, and the extinct indigenous Tasmanians all have or had fluffy hair, yet indigenous populations on the Australian mainland have predominantly loosely curled, wavy, or even straight hair. Maybe prehistoric North Africans underwent selection for less fluffy hair as a result of living in a desert climate analogous to that of the Australian interior? I wouldn't even rule out the possibility that this development even contributed to the predominant hair texture in western Eurasia today if we consider Basal Eurasian admixture in current West Eurasians.
Wavy hair being from Eurasia aside... how does this particular point supports AMH being "fluffy" haired? You're right there isn't uniformity in hair types when dealing with certain textures. But that can simply be a result of convergent evolution or just the polygenic nature of hair texture and curvature. I also want to point out that the sweep likely happened more recently post OOA. The genes for kinky and tightly coiled hair was likely present among the diversity of pre-OOA humans and were naturally selected for in certain climates outside of Africa. And that's if they selected for the same genes cause this could be an example of convergent evolution; like we seen with the development of their stature and gut biome.
Lastly Which form of selective pressure will pull humans towards less curvature in non tropical climates? I have no reason to believe the dry curly hair texture we see in North Africa today isn't more similar to the ancestral phenotype. More kinky and tightly coiled hair will do just fine anywhere in the world that isn't freezing and even then I need some good evidence as to why not. What kinda pressure in northern Africa would select for a back mutation?
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
posted
The only thing that seems reasonable to me is the population fluctuating. It would be weird ancient humanity was colorists or featurist back then to select a specific phenotyple.
Posts: 1123 | From: New York | Registered: Feb 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Thereal: The only thing that seems reasonable to me is the population fluctuating. It would be weird ancient humanity was colorists or featurist back then to select a specific phenotyple.
The frequency of hyper curly and kinky hair is an attribute of Natural Selection. Only the Khoisan are known to sexually select for their hair type. It's not about featurist or colorists... It's simply whether or not you will survive long enough to reproduce.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ I'm personally inclined to Rasol and Swenet's theory that ancestral AM Humans in Africa probably already had the same type of diversity for hair form that modern Africans have today. We know modern Africans possess only a fraction of the genetic diversity their prehistoric ancestors possessed and as further circumstantial evidence we see the Sahulese people (Australasians of Papua New Guinea, Australia, and Tasmania--originally all one continent of Sahul) who also possess diverse hair types with Papuans having kinky hair, Aussies having wavy to straight hair, and Tasmanians having frizzy hair. Yet the Sahulese represent the earliest branch of OOA.
The idiot Antalas cites this paper on the mutation types for straight hair with TCHH in Europeans and EDAR in East Asians yet nowhere does that study mention the straight hair among South Asians or Australian Aborigines! This could only mean that straight hair the latter populations has nothing to do with the mutations discussed in the paper.
Even in the above map, the areas with TCHH derived alleles outside of Europe are those areas with historical European genetic influence including the coastal areas of North Africa. Just eyeballing that map, only northern Egypt has it, yet we know loose hair texture is common among the darker (blacker) populations of southern Egypt and Northern Sudan not to mention all throughout the Saharan region as well as areas of the Horn. Yet all those areas are devoid of the blue coloring.
Getting back to my point, look at the trichometric index chart cited by the West African Magazine: San, Southern African 55.O0 Zulu, Southern African 55.O0 Sub-Saharan Africa 60.O0 Tasmanian (Black) 64.70 Australian (Black) 68.00 Western European 71.20 Asian Indian 73.00 Navajo American 77.00 Chinese 82.60
^ Note the San and Zulu of Southern Africa are separated from the rest of "Sub-Saharan" Africa and the San having the tightest coiled or spiral tuft hair has the lowest average index of 55 which is shared by the Zulu (who have significant San ancestry). I take it the 'Sub-Saharans' have the stereotypical 'kinky' hair type have the average index of 60 which is higher. Note also the difference between the Sahulese peoples with Tasmanians at 64.7 and Australians at 68.
Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ I'm personally inclined to Rasol and Swenet's theory that ancestral AM Humans in Africa probably already had the same type of diversity for hair form that modern Africans have today. We know modern Africans possess only a fraction of the genetic diversity their prehistoric ancestors possessed and as further circumstantial evidence we see the Sahulese people (Australasians of Papua New Guinea, Australia, and Tasmania--originally all one continent of Sahul) who also possess diverse hair types with Papuans having kinky hair, Aussies having wavy to straight hair, and Tasmanians having frizzy hair. Yet the Sahulese represent the earliest branch of OOA.
The idiot Antalas cites this paper on the mutation types for straight hair with TCHH in Europeans and EDAR in East Asians yet nowhere does that study mention the straight hair among South Asians or Australian Aborigines! This could only mean that straight hair the latter populations has nothing to do with the mutations discussed in the paper.
Even in the above map, the areas with TCHH derived alleles outside of Europe are those areas with historical European genetic influence including the coastal areas of North Africa. Just eyeballing that map, only northern Egypt has it, yet we know loose hair texture is common among the darker (blacker) populations of southern Egypt and Northern Sudan not to mention all throughout the Saharan region as well as areas of the Horn. Yet all those areas are devoid of the blue coloring.
Antalas doesn't truly seek to understand what he posts or read. But just as you explained yes there was likely a variety in hair types in the early AMH days. I mentioned before in a thread that might have been deleted that a N.African origin of a mutation in the TCHH gene could be a reality. and that the derived variant is found though almost exclusively heterozygous in modern SSA populations. Initially his arguing point was that Taforalt who were fixed for the derived allele were straight haired to look more like Europeans.
The gene comes up again though a different mutation that most likely has a European origin and lower frequencies globally. This is what happens when folks poorly understand what they read, or repost. You can see how confusion can occur once we're not honest or poorly understand the information which we post. Not only is the mutation responsible for only ~6% variance, but most people carry the ancestral genotype among tested populations who have predominantly wavy or straight hair.
The way that study could be relevant is if the claim was that A.Egyptians or whoever carried the derived allele. And to my knowledge rs11803731 isn't even captured in ancient individuals, possibly due to how irrelevant it is.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ LOL No surprise there! I've long noticed how Antalas in desperation would cite studies that actually contradict or conflict with what he claims. It's quite comical actually which again is why I don't take him seriously and merely use him as an example to those lurkers visiting the forum.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: Antalas doesn't truly seek to understand what he posts or read. But just as you explained yes there was likely a variety in hair types in the early AMH days. I mentioned before in a thread that might have been deleted that a N.African origin of a mutation in the TCHH gene could be a reality. and that the derived variant is found though almost exclusively heterozygous in modern SSA populations. Initially his arguing point was that Taforalt who were fixed for the derived allele were straight haired to look more like Europeans.
The gene comes up again though a different mutation that most likely has a European origin and lower frequencies globally. This is what happens when folks poorly understand what they read, or repost. You can see how confusion can occur once we're not honest or poorly understand the information which we post. Not only is the mutation responsible for only ~6% variance, but most people carry the ancestral genotype among tested populations who have predominantly wavy or straight hair.
The way that study could be relevant is if the claim was that A.Egyptians or whoever carried the derived allele. And to my knowledge rs11803731 isn't even captured in ancient individuals, possibly due to how irrelevant it is. [/QB]
What does 6% of variance means here ? An impact of only 6% on the hair type ? If it was that insignificant why they took the time to report it ?
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: Antalas doesn't truly seek to understand what he posts or read. But just as you explained yes there was likely a variety in hair types in the early AMH days. I mentioned before in a thread that might have been deleted that a N.African origin of a mutation in the TCHH gene could be a reality. and that the derived variant is found though almost exclusively heterozygous in modern SSA populations. Initially his arguing point was that Taforalt who were fixed for the derived allele were straight haired to look more like Europeans.
The gene comes up again though a different mutation that most likely has a European origin and lower frequencies globally. This is what happens when folks poorly understand what they read, or repost. You can see how confusion can occur once we're not honest or poorly understand the information which we post. Not only is the mutation responsible for only ~6% variance, but most people carry the ancestral genotype among tested populations who have predominantly wavy or straight hair.
The way that study could be relevant is if the claim was that A.Egyptians or whoever carried the derived allele. And to my knowledge rs11803731 isn't even captured in ancient individuals, possibly due to how irrelevant it is.
What does 6% of variance means here ? An impact of only 6% on the hair type ? If it was that insignificant why they took the time to report it ? [/QB]
It's a correlational find. What you get from 'Composite of Multiple Signals.' You take a region that shows Amplification or Enrichment when compared to a investigated phenotype. They found the signal so they reported it and three other snps responsible for less hair curvature.
If you look at the Manhattan plot above you can estimate that there are a few other SNPs nearby (TCHH) that show a correlation with hair curvature, but due to the population aggregate the signals probably associated exclusively with West Eurasians had been dampened. (See EDAR region)
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
posted
As usual Antalas provides good data but is totally erroneous with his interpretations. Again the charts he presents are based on craniometric traits which are not good indicators of genetic relations the way non-metric traits are. That said, metric traits are useful in establishing what the general look or appearance of a populations is and what other populations resembled them in terms of features.
As I've pointed out before about the above chart, the population groupings are obviously arbitrary since there is a Sub-Saharan African grouping with Khoisan who are also Sub-Saharan forming their own grouping. Nilotes who are also Sub-Saharans form their own group and their position is intermediate between Sub-Saharans and Europeans, with the latter and Nilotes close to the x-axis. Nilotes are also intermediate to Nubians who are right beside Indians. The Upper Egyptian and Lower Egyptians cluster together but strangely the 'Bedouins' group falls within the same cluster and is closer to Upper Egyptians than the Lower Egyptians. I wonder where the Bedouins sample comes from and I wonder if it is the same Bedouins sample from Morocco that Irish used. The Maghreb sample falls on the y-axis like the Lower Egyptians and is closest to the Egyptian cluster among North Africans.
Here is another version of the above chart with other world populations included.
Note the Egyptian samples are compacted into one Ancient Egyptian grouping and there is a 'Saharan' grouping that is intermediate between Khoisans and Nubians. The Indian grouping is intermediate between Nilotes and Maghreb as well as Nilotes and Ancient Egyptians, and the Sub-Saharan Africans are relatively closest to Australians (Aborigines).
Here is the other expanded and more detailed craniometric chart of North African samples.
Note it is more explicit that North Africans are intermediate between Sub-Saharan grouping and European grouping, and again South Indian samples like Tamil and Veddoid are included in the North African grouping clustered with early Nubians and predynastic Egyptians. Antalas loves to stress that the Late Giza sample and E-Series cluster with Greeks but omits the fact that these were Neolithic Greeks who were noted to have more "negroid" affinities per Brace 2004. The surprise is that the Neolithic peoples of Europe and their Bronze Age successors are not closely related to the modern inhabitants, although the prehistoric/modern ties are somewhat more apparent in southern Europe. It is a further surprise that the Epipalaeolithic Natufian of Israel from whom the Neolithic realm was assumed to arise has a clear link to Sub-Saharan Africa.
And from F. X. Ricaut, M. Waelkens. (2008). 'Cranial Discrete Traits in a Byzantine Population and Eastern Mediterranean Population Movements' Human Biology - Volume 80, Number 5, October 2008, pp. 535-564: A late Pleistocene-early Holocene northward migration (from Africa to the Levant and to Anatolia) of these populations has been hypothesized from skeletal data (Angel 1972, 1973; Brace 2005) and from archaeological data, as indicated by the probable Nile Valley origin of the "Mesolithic" (epi-Paleolithic) Mushabi culture found in the Levant (Bar Yosef 1987). This migration finds some support in the presence in Mediterranean populations (Sicily, Greece, southern Turkey, etc.; Patrinos et al.; Schiliro et al. 1990) of the Benin sickle cell haplotype. This haplotype originated in West Africa and is probably associated with the spread of malaria to southern Europe through an eastern Mediterranean route (Salares et al. 2004) following the expansion of both human and mosquito populations brought about by the advent of the Neolithic transition (Hume et al 2003; Joy et al. 2003; Rich et al 1998). This northward migration of northeastern African populations carrying sub-Saharan biological elements is concordant with the morphological homogeneity of the Natufian populations (Bocquentin 2003), which present morphological affinity with sub-Saharan populations (Angel 1972; Brace et al. 2005). In addition, the Neolithic revolution was assumed to arise in the late Pleistocene Natufians and subsequently spread into Anatolia and Europe (Bar-Yosef 2002), and the first Anatolian farmers, Neolithic to Bronze Age Mediterraneans and to some degree other Neolithic-Bronze Age Europeans, show morphological affinities with the Natufians (and indirectly with sub-Saharan populations; Angel 1972; Brace et al 2005), in concordance with a process of demic diffusion accompanying the extension of the Neolithic revolution (Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1994).
So let's compare the above MMD charts to some dendograms.
Brace 1993
An expanded more detailed version of the above
Brace 2004
An expanded more detailed version of the above
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ I was just going to say people tend to misuse metric affinities as proof of genetic affinities when we can clearly see that depending on the data collected, Sub-Saharans usually group with Australian Aborigines and Nubians with South Indians while Egyptians are intermediate with Nubians and Europeans but in the case of the latter particularly Neolithic Europeans who had North African admixture. So if we are just comparing populations by craniofacial metrics you get various trends or groupings. What's interesting is that not only do Sub-Saharans group with Aboriginal Australians but together they group closer to East Asians first before North Africans and Europeans! In fact this is something that both Eurocentrics and Afrocentrics tend to forget or ignore.
East Asian affinities aside, Eurocentrics love to stress the distance of modal Sub-Saharans to that of modal North Africans which is something some Afrocentrics who deny African phenotypic diversity tend to ignore. By the way, the modal or statistically based archetype is different from racial stereotype. For example North African crania may be "negroid" in appearance due to certain features but when their metric traits are all added up they are still very different from 'typical' Sub-Saharan types like West and Central Africans. Swenet has tried to explain this many times like with the quotes below: The indications of exclusion, however, are much easier to interpret. For example, the likelihood that either the Giza or Naqada configuration could occur in West Africa, the Congo, or points south is vanishingly small-0.000 and 0.001. --Brace 1993
We collected measurements for a single specimen from what was called the Nubian X Group in Reisner’s terminology (Reisner, 1909). This was a population that immediately preceded the early Christian Nubians of AD 550 (Carlson and Van Gerven, 19791, and, in the subjective treatment of a generation gone by, had been regarded as evidence for a “Negroid incursion" (Batrawi, 1935; Smith, 1909; Seligman, 1915). As our figures show, the probability of finding our representative specimen in a Sub-Saharan population is 0.009, which is highly unlikely. Its column loadings are generally similar to the loadings in the column for the Predynastic Naqada sample, and, except for the fact that it is only marginally unlikely that it can be excluded from the Giza sample, it cannot be denied membership in the Naqada, European, or South Asian samples. --Brace 1993
So "Negroid" or as Keita calls it "southern" is not synonymous with the modal or stereotypical Sub-Saharan type. But the same can also be said about "Mongoloid" with Mongolians and other North Asians being metrically distinct from other East Asians.
Ironically Mongols are the least typical examples of East Asians. 'Mongoloid' then is not a good way to characterize the cluster of East Asian peoples.--Brace 1993
A Euclidean Distance dendrogram or cluster diagram demonstrating the atypical status of Mongols when compared with representative samples of the other inhabitants of East Asia. The values for the measurements were converted into C scores and compared by Unweighted Matched Pair Group Analysis (IJMPGA). The procedure was pioneered by Howells (1986) and is described in greater detail in Brace and Hunt (1990).
^ Interestingly Mongols and other North Asians are as divergent from other East Asians as Wadi Halfans are to other Sub-Saharans.
posted
The converse is also true-- with many metric studies showing Egyptians to have close affinities to West Asian groups like Jericho and Lachish. I recall Swenet citing a graph showing early dynastic Abydos and Thebes to cluster close to a West Asian group (Lachish?). However, when nonmetric data is assessed it shows that the Egyptian crania are actually statistically distant from the West Asian samples which metrically resemble.
Ullinger & Sheridan et al. (2005) Paper on Dental Nonmetrics of the Southern Levant: The proposal that Lachish was comprised of Egyptian immigrants (Risdon, 1939) was not supported. Rather, the current findings support the theory that the people of Lachish were indigenous to the southern Levant (Keith, 1940; Arensburg, 1973; Arensburg etal., 1980; Smith, 1995), as Dothan and Lachish were both significantly different from Lisht.
This is later verified by genetics, so while metric data is useful in assessing the general morphometric trend of populations they can't be taken for granted as proof of genetic affinities.
Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic